Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation? • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#541

Post by dv_dt » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #524

dv_dt wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been many studies since 2018 that say areas where they previously thought it would be difficult to get to 80%, that would be perfectly feasible to get to 100% with near term technologies. See Austrailian grid analysis. The key difference is that the prices for both renewables and storage are far ahead of cost reduction estimates in previous forcasts.

Australia has vast tracts of cheap land and very good solar potential (close to equator, little cloud cover). They also have energy usage patterns that are amenable to solar, with ACs run during the day and little need for heating at night. Most countries do not share these characteristics. And I'd still like to see what they have planned for energy storage. It likely still involves shifting demand (in other words, t…

That seems to have improved greatly in a years time. The speed with which renewable sources come one line I think is surprising everyone.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-re...

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#542

Post by adrianN » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #526

adrianN wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, almost nobody has a thermostat where the power company decides when the heating comes on.

Because that's a terrible idea. what do you expect people to do when there's a cloudy winter day and the power company can't fulfill electricity demand? Freeze? When people are cold they're going to turn on their thermostat. If their thermostat doesn't turn on because the power company shut it off, they're going to use a space heater. Humans' desire to not freeze is a very in-elastic type demand, unlike the time of d…

I'm apparently not making myself very clear: A proposed way of shifting power demand is giving the power company some measure of control over the temperature in your house, or your hot water boiler, your freezer, the steam in your district heating's pipes, or your aluminium smelter. You define an acceptable band of temperature and the power company can choose to turn heating or cooling on or off, as long as the temperature doesn't fall out of the acceptable range. This allows them to heat up your home when the wind is blowing a little more, and heat your home a little less when the wind is not blowing.

This does not solve the problem of windstill, dark winter weeks, where you will want proper energy storage solutions, for example hydrogen or methane that you made during summer. But it does help substantially with reducing peak demand by smearing it out over a longer time frame and thus reduces storage needs. It is in fact such a good idea that it makes sense even with conventional power generation, because even with fossil fuels demand spikes are expensive.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#543

Post by xyzzyz » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #518

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example they can turn heating in your home on or off as long as the temperature stays within a band defined by you. This is not science fiction, it exists today. I know people who use it already. That's how literally every thermostat has worked that I've encountered in my entire life, and I'm close to 30. Yes, this technology already exists. That's why there's no benefit to it: almost everyone already has a the…

No, almost nobody has a thermostat where the power company decides when the heating comes on.

I long for the future where power company decides whether I'm hot or cold. That truly would be a sign of progress.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#544

Post by ENIanDEM » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

justatdotin wrote: post #376

this year, the veil fell and the usa nuclear fuel working group showed the industry for what it is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-e... The nexus with weapons is undeniable. I stand with hibakusha in opposition to nuclearism. https://www.icanw.org/

... What? Trump decided to enact some protectionist uranium policies and this makes the nuclear industry the baddies..? Did you throw out all your cutlery in disgust when he jacked up steel import tariffs? This is cretinous.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#545

Post by xyzzyz » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #531

jillesvangurp wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no lithium shortage. E.g. Tesla is basically mining in Nevada in a place that has apparently more than enough for their quite ambitious roadmap. Also money quote from Elon Musk last week was that it's one of the most common elements in the world. Basically, we've only scratched the surface (quite literally) in terms of actively looking for the stuff as the demand for lithium at this scale is a fairly recent…

You have to be very careful with claims about relative abundance. Take water as an example, 2/3 of our planets surface is covered in it and yet for practical purposes it's useless to us for drinking or watering crops. Regardless, I didn't make any claim about abundance of lithium, only the current manufacturing capacity. My point about Iceland is they already have huge amounts of geothermal power and they should be a…

> Take water as an example, 2/3 of our planets surface is covered in it and yet for practical purposes it's useless to us for drinking or watering crops.

It's not useless, it just requires too much processing and transportation to be practical. The issue with water is that for what we need it, we really require enormous amounts of it. This is not the case with lithium, where required amounts are trivial in comparison. Just to make the point: a truck-load full of lithium is worth around $300,000. To desalinate the same truck-load worth of salt water, it costs about $20, that is, 4 orders of magnitude less. If you don't have to desalinate, but instead can just draw fresh water, it will be around $1-2 for a truck-load. Obviously, trucking in water is still too expensive, because we need lots and lots of water, truly insane amounts compared to anything else.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#546

Post by Manfredo_1 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #542

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's a terrible idea. what do you expect people to do when there's a cloudy winter day and the power company can't fulfill electricity demand? Freeze? When people are cold they're going to turn on their thermostat. If their thermostat doesn't turn on because the power company shut it off, they're going to use a space heater. Humans' desire to not freeze is a very in-elastic type demand, unlike the time of d…

I'm apparently not making myself very clear: A proposed way of shifting power demand is giving the power company some measure of control over the temperature in your house, or your hot water boiler, your freezer, the steam in your district heating's pipes, or your aluminium smelter. You define an acceptable band of temperature and the power company can choose to turn heating or cooling on or off, as long as the tempe…

You're making yourself perfectly clear, you're just wrong about the claim that smart grids will improve heating:

* With my normal thermostat I set my home to be heated to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. When it falls below 68 degrees it gets heated.

* With a smart thermostat I set my home to be heated to 68 degrees. When it falls below that, it gets heated.

There is zero difference between the behavior of a "smart" thermostat and a normal thermostat. Unless the power company gets to turn off your thermostat, or reduce the temperature range below what the user set then there's no way to reduce power consumption by hooking it up to a smart grid.

A smart grid works by rearranging the schedule of energy demand. This only works for types of energy demand that can be rearranged, like running your dryer. You can't rearrange the time when your home is heated, unless you want to be cold.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#547

Post by AI_WAIFU » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #445

AI_WAIFU wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand who's bright idea it was to use water as the primary coolant for a nuclear reactor. IIRC almost every single major nuclear incident has been caused or dramatically exacerbated by having it boil away or cause a steam explosion or mix with the ground water or chemically react with the fuel rods to produce additional heat and hydrogen gas which also explodes. Like just go through this list and count t…

Liquid metal reactors also have had their fair share of accidents despite their small presence.

Of course, but a liquid lead reactor's failure modes don't usually involve a massive release of radioactivity all over the environment. Absolute worst case you'll get a meltdown and/or a coolant leak. But diligent materials choices should prevent an associated fire or steam explosions that would spread radioactive elements all over the place.

This isn't true with all liquid metal reactors though. Liquid sodium reactors have flammable radioactive coolant, and a coolant breach could be environmentally disastrous.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#548

Post by Manfredo_1 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

DoctorOetker wrote: post #537

jka wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments are the most compelling I've seen so far for more nuclear as opposed to renewables. I'm still leaning towards renewables for various reasons, but could be swayed - could you share any more details about where the 12 hour capacity requirement and costs mentioned come from?

please don't be swayed, he uses lots logical phallusese, in this thread for example: taking the US electric consumption at face value as being the power to be displaced 12 hours. note how this assumes that every joule you consume must have come from the storage system as if there were zero overlap between consumption and demand such that all energy had to pass indirectly through the battery system also note how he ty…

> please don't be swayed, he uses lots logical phallusese, in this thread for example: taking the US electric consumption at face value as being the power to be displaced 12 hours.

Excellent point: The power that's going to be displaced is during the evening and night, which is when peak energy consumption occurs. The power that's going to be displaced is even greater!

> note how this assumes that every joule you consume must have come from the storage system as if there were zero overlap between consumption and demand such that all energy had to pass indirectly through the battery system

I do no such thing, not all energy needs to pass through the battery system. Of course daytime energy use can draw on solar panels directly.

> also note how he typically treats reminders by others as claims of silver bullet panaceas: even if governments had devoted to fully switching to renewables and had solid plans distributed over multiple sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ...) and over multiple storage systems (synthetic fuel, batteries, flywheels, ...) in a way it sufficed our needs, it's not surprising that pointing at just one energy source or just one storage type, you'd arrive to the conclusion batteries, or solar won't suffice... even though in combination they might.

In combination they might suffice. Do we want to bet averting climate catastrophe on a solution that might work? Or on a solution that does work? We know that nuclear power can power all of a nation's energy demands. We have firsthand examples of this happening. It's not contingent on unproven technologies like synthetic fuels, grid-scale batteries, or massive farms of flywheels.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#549

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

emteycz wrote: post #273

7952 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The externalities are orders of magnitude less complex to deal with.

This right here is a prime example of Dunning-Kruger effect. You're completely forgetting the large scale effects on nature, for example, which nuclear does not have.

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#550

Post by VBprogrammer » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #539

necheffa wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables are not a silver bullet either. There are plenty of nasty things that go into building batteries and solar panels with no where near the attention to safely disposing them. Plus, renewables just can't handle baseload and load follow the way fossil or nuclear can.

Battery storage follows load much faster than fossil, and nuclear can't follow at all.

Wrong on nuclear. They operate in load following in France just fine.